natives. Livestock grazing in riparian areas creates

the most likely risk to maintenance of well-distributed habitat for this species.

Cumulative effects. As shown in figure 4.25,

average weighted mean outcomes for cuckoos,

hummingbirds, and passerines were lower under

the cumulative effects analysis than under the

Federal habitat analysis. Several factors contributed to this difference in results. First, many

of these species migrate to the neotropics where

habitat is at risk to agriculture and other development (Saab and Rich, in press). Second, many of

the species are insectivores whose prey densities

may be reduced by pesticide spraying, especially

on non-Federal lands (Saab and Rich, in press). In

addition, some species may be directly affected by

the toxic effects of herbicides and insecticides

(Dobkin 1993). Expansion of cheatgrass, especially on non-Federal lands, will continue to reduce

suitable habitat for species associated with native

herbs and grasses. For species associated with sagebrush habitat, fire suppression has resulted in

increased habitat because sagebrush is favored by

suppression of fire. However, widespread conversion of sagebrush to agriculture on non-Federal

lands has reduced the amount of suitable sagebrush habitat.

Figure 4.26 Forest Birds

UCRB

Figure 4.26. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for 12 species of birds associated with forest habitat on

Federal lands in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS

alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges

of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.27 Forest Birds

Figure 4.27. Mean outcome scores averaged over 12 species of birds associated with forest habitat in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for

habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines

are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Figure 4.28 Forest Birds

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.28. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions under each alternative for 12 species of

birds associated with forest habitat in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean

outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.29 Woodland Birds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.29. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for four species of birds associated with woodland habitat on

Federal lands in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft E1S

alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges

of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Figure 4.30 Woodland Birds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.30. Mean outcome scores averaged over four species of birds associated with woodland habitat in the EEIS and UCRB

planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate

scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis.

These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.31 Riparian Birds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.31. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for seven species of birds associated with riparian habitat on

Federal lands in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS

alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges

of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Figure 4.32 Riparian Birds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.32. Mean outcome scores averaged over seven species of birds associated with riparian habitat in the EEIS and UCRB

planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate

scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis.

These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.33 Grass/Shrub Birds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.33. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for 12 species of birds associated with grass/shrub habitat on

Federal lands in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS

alternatives. See "Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges

of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Figure 4.34 Grass/Shrub Birds

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.34. Mean outcome scores averaged over 12 species of birds associated with grass/shrub habitat in the EEIS and UCRB

planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate

scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis.

These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.35 Grass/Shrub Birds

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.35. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions to each alternative for 12 species of birds

associated with grass/shrub habitat in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean

outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Table 4.15. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerines for

evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to

100 points. High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual

likelihood scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

FOR Black-chinned

hummingbird EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 23 0 0 0 0 13 0 15 13

3 78 90 70 74 70 70 63 78 70

4 0 10 30 26 30 18 35 8 18

5 00000030 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 3 00008 0 1 0 6

3 78 85 53 60 53 63 48 68 65

4 0 15 43 39 43 28 48 21 28

5 00515351 1

Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 23 0 0 0 0 13 0 15 13

3 78 90 70 74 70 70 63 78 70

4 0 10 30 26 30 18 35 8 18

5 00000030 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 3 00005 0 1 0 6

3 78 85 53 60 53 63 48 68 65

4 0 15 43 39 43 30 48 21 28

5 00515351 1

FOR Broad-tailed

hummingbird UCRBBLM/FS 1 30000000 0

2 58 3 0 3 0 13 0 14 8

3 40 70 53 54 53 68 48 69 69

4 0 28 43 44 48 20 48 18 24

5 00500050 0

UCRBCumEff 1 30000000 0

2 5 8 0030506 5

3 40 58 45 44 43 63 40 64 61

4 0 40 51 51 55 33 53 30 34

5 03433080 0

FOR Chestnut-backed

chickadee EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 0 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 37

3 83 75 20 80 80 57 40 63 63

4 17 25 80 0 0 23 60 17 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00 0 20 20 20 0 20 37

3 83 75 20 80 80 57 40 63 63

4 17 25 80 0 0 23 60 17 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 17 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 37

3 83 83 20 80 80 57 40 63 63

4 0 17 80 0 0 23 60 17 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 17 0 0 20 20 20 0 20 37

3 83 83 20 80 80 57 40 63 63

4 0 17 80 0 0 23 60 17 0

5 00000000 0

F O R Hammond's flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 1 3 5 0000000 0

2 65 0 0 0 0 20 0 25 23

3 0 58 35 58 35 70 30 70 70

4 0 43 60 43 60 10 60 5 8

5 00505 0 1 0 0 0

Terrestrial 643,
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group' Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 7 5 0000000 0

2 25 0 0 0 0 10 0 15 13

3 0 50 30 48 30 60 25 65 68

4 0 50 60 48 60 30 55 20 20

5 0 0 10 5 10 0 20 0 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 3 5 0000000 0

2 65 0 0 0 0 20 0 25 23

3 0 68 40 68 40 70 35 70 70

4 0 33 55 33 55 10 55 58

5 00505 0 1 0 0 0

UCRBCumEff 1 7 5 0000000 0

2 25 0 0 0 0 10 0 15 13

3 0 60 30 58 30 60 25 65 68

4 0 40 60 38 60 30 55 20 20

5 0 0 10 5 10 0 20 0 0

F O R Lazuli bunting EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 38 24 18 25 23 37 16 36 39

3 62 76 70 75 77 63 70 64 61

4 0 0 1 2 00 0 1 4 0 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 38 20 14 17 15 23 12 23 23

3 62 67 70 68 70 68 71 70 67

4 0 13 16 15 15 9 17 7 10

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 64 44 36 40 40 52 27 52 51

3 36 56 61 60 60 48 66 48 49

4 00300070 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 64 26 16 21 17 28 14 28 28

3 36 68 74 71 75 68 74 70 64

4 0 6 1 0 88 4 1 2 2 8

5 00000000 0

F O R Olive-sided flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 1 8 0 0000000 0

2 2 0 0020407 2

3 0 64 51 62 55 77 42 78 77

4 0 36 49 36 45 19 58 15 21

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 8 0 0000000 0

2 2 0 0000000 0

3 0 57 35 46 38 54 33 54 53

4 0 43 63 54 61 46 61 46 47

5 00201060 0

642 Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group' Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

UCRBBLM/FS 1 8 0 0000000 0

2 20 0 0 0 010 011 6

3 0 84 61 65 67 79 56 80 82

4 0 16 39 35 33 11 44 9 12

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 8 0 0000000 0

2 2 0 0000000 0

3 0 67 42 42 44 63 38 67 64

4 0 33 58 58 56 37 60 33 36

5 00000020 0

F O R Rufous hummingbird EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 61 41 33 41 33 48 28 50 49

3 39 59 50 54 49 53 49 50 51

4 0 0 18 5 19 0 24 0 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 61 34 10 16 10 16 9 18 18

3 39 59 50 55 50 65 45 64 64

4 0 8 40 29 40 19 46 19 19

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 66 51 33 41 33 50 28 53 51

3 34 49 48 49 54 50 49 48 49

4 0 0 20 10 14 0 24 0 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 66 34 10 16 10 16 9 18 18

3 34 59 50 55 50 65 45 64 64

4 0 8 40 29 40 19 46 19 19

5 00000000 0

F O R Rufous-sided towhee EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 44 65 63 64 58 48 56 48 48

3 56 35 37 36 42 52 44 52 52

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 44 59 60 59 56 47 58 46 46

3 56 41 40 41 44 53 42 54 54

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 48 70 68 69 60 50 60 50 50

3 52 30 32 31 40 50 40 50 50

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial 643
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 48 63 64 63 60 49 58 48 48

3 52 37 36 37 40 51 42 52 52

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

F O R Western bluebird EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 88 3 10 23 35 63 35 75 45

3 13 98 40 78 65 38 65 25 55

4 0 0 4 0 00000 0

5 0 0 1 0 00000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 88 0 0 19 26 49 29 49 29

3 13 98 40 74 71 36 69 44 51

4 0 3 40 8 3 15 3 5 20

5 0 0 2 0 00003 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 88 3 10 25 38 63 38 73 43

3 13 98 40 75 63 38 63 28 58

4 0 0 4 0 00000 0

5 0 0 1 0 00000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 88 0 0 21 29 49 31 46 26

3 13 98 40 71 69 36 66 46 54

4 0 3 40 8 3 15 3 5 20

5 0 0 2 0 00003 0

FOR Western tanager EEIS BLM/FS 1 90 90 70 88 90 90 70 90 90

2 10 10 30 12 10 10 30 10 10

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 88 88 46 56 58 58 44 58 58

2 12 12 40 36 34 34 40 34 34

3 0 0 1 4 88 8 1 6 8 8

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 90 90 72 88 90 90 72 90 90

2 10 10 28 12 10 10 28 10 10

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 88 88 46 56 58 58 44 58 58

2 12 12 40 36 34 34 40 34 34

3 0 0 1 4 88 8 1 6 8 8

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

644 Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

F O R White-winged crossbill EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 0000000 0 1 5

3 100 100 65 100 95 85 65 100 85

4 0 0 35 0 5 15 35 0 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 10 10 0 10 0 15 0 18 35

3 90 90 75 90 95 70 70 83 65

4 0 0 25 0 5 15 30 0 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 0000000 0 1 5

3 100 100 65 100 95 85 65 100 85

4 0 0 35 0 5 15 35 0 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 10 10 0 10 0 15 0 18 35

3 90 90 75 90 95 70 70 83 65

4 0 0 25 0 5 15 30 0 -0

5 00000000 0

F O R Wilson's warbler EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 76 48 43 47 44 58 30 63 71

4 24 52 57 53 56 42 70 37 29

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 76 48 43 47 44 58 30 63 71

4 24 52 57 53 56 42 70 37 29

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 61 45 52 49 59 33 64 74

4 20 39 55 48 51 41 67 36 26

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 80 61 45 52 49 59 33 64 74

4 20 39 55 48 51 41 67 36 26

5 00000000 0

F O R Winter wren EEIS BLM/FS 1 50000000 0

2 75 16 3 3 5 25 5 35 18

3 20 68 43 48 48 55 38 53 48

4 0 16 55 50 48 20 55 13 35

5 00000030 0

Terrestrial 645
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 50000000 0

2 7 5 3 0005 0 1 4 0

3 20 53 33 34 35 53 31 56 43

4 0 45 61 61 60 43 60 30 58

5 00655090 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 1 0 0000000 0

2 83 25 10 13 13 33 13 38 25

3 8 68 55 58 58 55 41 51 49

4 0 8 35 30 30 13 44 11 26

5 00000030 0

UCRBCumEff 1 1 0 0000000 0

2 83 5 0 0 0 10 0 13 5

3 8 63 30 35 38 50 31 51 43

4 0 33 64 60 58 40 60 36 53

5 00655090 0

G S Black rosy finch EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 100 100 67 67 96 100 67 100 100

5 0 0 33 33 4 0 33 0 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 100 100 67 67 96 100 67 100 100

5 0 0 33 33 4 0 33 0 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

5 00000000 0

G S Bobolink BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 3 0 0044606 4

4 70 62 44 62 62 74 42 76 64

5 0 38 56 34 34 20 58 18 32

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 62 0 0 16 16 10 0 10 4

4 38 42 28 46 44 45 26 46 44

5 0 58 72 38 40 45 74 44 52

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 66 6 2 16 16 18 2 18 16

4 34 62 50 56 56 64 48 66 56

5 0 32 48 28 28 18 50 16 28

648 Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 66 0 0 18 18 12 0 12 12

4 34 64 46 53 53 58 44 59 53

5 0 36 54 29 29 30 56 29 35

GS Brewer's blackbird EEIS BLM/FS 1 92 90 65 88 82 89 63 89 86

2 8 10 29 12 18 11 31 11 14

3 00600060 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 92 57 20 25 23 26 20 28 23

2 8 33 54 53 53 52 54 50 53

3 0 10 26 22 24 22 26 22 24

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 92 90 65 88 82 89 63 89 86

2 8 10 29 12 18 11 31 11 14

3 00600060 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 92 57 30 25 23 26 20 28 23

2 8 33 54 53 53 52 54 50 53

3 0 10 16 22 24 22 26 22 24

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

G S Brewer's sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1 7 1 6 0 244408 0

2 29 40 26 26 26 28 25 32 25

3 0 0 58 56 56 54 61 54 54

4 0 0 14 14 14 14 14 6 21

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 7 5 1 2 000000 0

2 25 53 11 10 10 12 7 17 10

3 0 32 57 52 52 50 54 59 48

4 0 3 32 38 38 38 39 24 40

5 00000000 2

UCRB BLM/FS 1 64 22 2 4 4 4 0 10 0

2 36 60 26 26 26 30 26 34 27

3 0 14 56 54 54 50 58 48 52

4 0 4 16 16 16 16 16 8 21

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 6 8 0000000 0

2 32 47 8 9 8 12 7 17 10

3 0 45 53 53 54 50 54 59 48

4 0 8 39 38 38 38 39 24 40

5 00000000 2

G S Grasshopper sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 4 2 0000000 0

4 58 6 6 6 4 21 4 33 8

5 0 94 94 94 96 79 96 67 92

Terrestrial 647
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 1 8 0000000 0

2 7 4 0000000 0

3 80000000 0

4 0 6 66 4 1 9 4 3 1 8

5 0 94 94 94 96 81 96 69 92

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 2 6 0000000 0

3 66 6 6 6 4 16 6 28 15

4 8 86 80 80 68 73 77 64 74

5 0 8 14 14 28 11 17 8 11

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 4 0 0000202 0

3 56 16 14 14 12 22 12 32 20

4 4 82 84 84 72 74 86 66 80

5 022 2 1 6 220 0

GS Horned lark EEIS BLM/FS 1 2 54 57 57 62 74 55 74 71

2 42 46 43 43 38 26 45 26 29

3 5 6 0000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 2 51 10 10 10 11 6 12 11

2 42 49 48 48 48 49 50 48 49

3 56 0 42 42 42 40 44 40 40

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 2 54 57 57 62 74 55 74 74

2 42 46 43 43 38 26 45 26 26

3 5 6 0000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 2 51 10 10 10 11 6 12 11

2 42 49 48 48 48 49 50 48 49

3 56 0 42 42 42 40 44 40 40

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

G S Lark sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1 6 7 5 8 244408 0

2 33 42 26 26 26 28 25 32 25

3 0 0 58 56 56 54 61 54 54

4 0 0 14 14 14 14 14 6 21

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 7 1 2000000 0

2 29 49 9 10 10 12 7 17 10

3 0 42 59 58 58 56 60 57 56

4 0 7 32 32 32 32 33 26 34

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 60 20 2 4 4 4 0 10 0

2 40 62 26 26 26 30 26 34 27

3 0 14 56 54 54 50 58 48 52

4 0 4 16 16 16 16 16 8 21

5 00000000 0

648 Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 6 4 0000000 0

2 36 47 8 9 8 12 7 17 10

3 0 45 53 53 54 50 54 57 54

4 0 8 39 38 38 38 39 26 34

5 00000000 2

GS Loggerhead shrike EEIS BLM/FS 1 3 4 1 1 1 33414 2

2 66 48 26 26 26 25 24 32 25

3 0 41 45 43 43 44 47 46 42

4 0 0 28 28 28 27 28 18 31

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 3 4 8000000 0

2 66 28 10 10 10 14 12 16 8

3 0 40 40 38 36 53 30 34 28

4 0 22 46 48 50 33 52 50 61

5 02444060 3

UCRB BLM/FS 1 3 4 1 1 133314 2

2 66 48 31 31 31 31 29 37 30

3 0 41 43 41 41 41 45 43 38

4 0 0 25 25 25 25 25 16 .30

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 3 4 8000000 0

2 66 28 10 10 10 14 12 16 10

3 0 40 42 40 40 55 34 34 29

4 0 22 46 48 48 31 50 50 58

5 02222040 3

GS Sage sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1 77 66 7 8 810 413 2

2 23 34 41 40 40 44 39 47 42

3 0 0 46 46 46 40 51 36 48

4 00666664 8

5 00000000 0

EElSCum/Eff 1 8 1 4000000 0

2 19 56 19 20 20 22 17 29 20

3 0 34 53 52 52 50 54 59 50

4 0 6 28 28 28 28 29 12 30

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 77 66 7 8 8 10 4 13 2

2 23 34 41 40 40 44 39 47 42

3 0 0 46 46 46 40 51 36 48

4 00666664 8

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 8 1 2000000 0

2 19 58 19 19 18 22 17 29 20

3 0 34 53 53 54 50 54 59 50

4 0 6 28 28 28 28 29 12 30

5 00000000 0

GS Sage thrasher EEIS BLM/FS 1 71 .60 2 4 4 4 0 8 0

2 29 40 26 26 26 28 25 32 25

3 0 0 58 56 56 54 61 54 54

4 0 0 14 14 14 14 14 6 21

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial 64S
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 7 5 2000004 0

2 25 51 12 13 12 15 10 25 14

3 0 41 55 55 55 54 56 56 53

4 0 6 33 32 33 31 34 15 33

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 64 40 2 4 4 4 0 10 0

2 36 44 26 26 26 30 26 34 27

3 0 12 56 54 54 50 58 48 52

4 0 4 16 16 16 16 16 8 21

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 6 8 0000000 0

2 32 51 10 13 12 15 10 19 12

3 0 43 56 55 55 54 56 58 51

4 0 6 34 32 33 31 34 23 35

5 00000000 2

GS Vesper sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1 80 64 30 30 30 35 28 40 30

2 20 36 54 54 54 51 52 52 54

3 0 0 16 16 16 14 20 8 16

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 86 40 4 4 4 6 4 10 4

2 14 49 54 54 54 57 51 62 54

3 0 11 42 42 42 37 45 28 42

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 80 66 30 30 30 35 28 40 30

2 20 34 54 54 54 51 52 52 54

3 0 0 16 16 16 14 20 8 16

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 86 40 4 4 4 6 4 10 4

2 14 48 53 53 53 55 50 58 53

3 0 12 43 43 43 39 46 32 43

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

GS Western meadowlark EEIS BLM/FS 1 92 90 60 60 60 70 56 75 60

2 8 10 40 40 40 30 44 25 40

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 92 90 41 41 41 49 37 55 43

2 8 10 59 59 59 51 63 45 57

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 92 90 60 60 60 70 56 75 60

2 8 10 40 40 40 30 44 25 40

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

6S8 Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 92 90 41 41 41 49 37 55 43

2 8 10 59 59 59 51 63 45 57

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

R I P Red-eyed vireo EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 65 38 34 49 49 51 25 54 48

4 35 63 66 51 51 49 75 46 53

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 73 30 19 29 29 36 19 41 38

4 28 70 81 71 71 64 81 59 63

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 65 45 38 54 54 56 29 59 53

4 35 55 63 46 46 44 71 41 48

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 75 38 26 35 35 39 19 44 44

4 25 63 74 65 65 61 81 56 56

5 00000000 0

R I P Red-winged blackbird EEIS BLM/FS 1 20000000 0

2 84 56 34 70 70 71 34 73 73

3 14 44 66 30 30 29 66 27 27

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 20000000 0

2 84 50 12 26 26 27 12 25 25

3 14 50 67 62 62 62 67 64 64

4 0 0 21 12 12 11 21 11 11

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 20000000 0

2 84 56 34 70 70 71 40 67 73

3 14 44 66 30 30 29 60 33 27

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 20000000 0

2 84 50 12 26 26 27 12 29 29

3 14 50 67 62 62 62 67 60 60

4 0 0 21 12 12 11 21 11 11

5 00000000 0

R I P Veery EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 2 8 4475858 8

3 72 58 49 55 51 64 45 68 58

4 0 38 47 38 44 28 50 24 34

5 00000000 0

Terrestrial 651
iable 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 AS A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 2 8 2222424 2

3 72 40 28 44 42 55 30 53 50

4 0 58 70 54 56 41 68 43 48

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 62 6 5 9 7 10 7 10 10

3 38 61 53 61 56 66 50 69 64

4 0 33 42 30 37 24 43 21 26

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 2 4233626 4

3 38 41 32 42 43 47 33 53 46

4 0 55 66 55 54 47 65 41 50

5 00000000 0

R I P Willow flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 4 4 2 020202 2

3 56 56 40 51 45 54 40 58 55

4 0 42 60 47 55 44 60 40 43

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 4 6 0000000 0

3 54 42 27 40 34 42 29 43 38

4 0 58 73 60 66 58 71 57 62

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 4 4 2020202 2

3 56 56 42 51 45 54 40 58 55

4 0 42 58 47 55 44 60 40 43

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 5 8 0000000 0

3 42 42 27 40 32 42 29 41 42

4 0 58 73 60 68 58 71 59 58

5 00000000 0

R I P Yellow warbler EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 6 0 0000000 0

3 40 64 50 59 62 70 48 73 67

4 0 36 50 41 38 30 52 27 33

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 2 0000000 0

3 38 49 33 42 43 53 26 57 49

4 0 51 67 58 57 47 74 43 51

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 6 0 0000000 0

3 40 64 50 59 62 70 48 72 67

4 0 36 50 41 38 30 52 28 33

5 00000000 0

652 Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 2 0000000 0

3 38 49 33 42 43 53 26 57 49

4 0 51 67 58 57 47 74 43 51

5 00000000 0

R I P Yellow-billed cuckoo EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 5 0000000 0

4 45 50 28 48 48 53 5 54 45

5 0 50 73 53 53 48 95 46 55

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 6 0000000 0

4 44 10 10 25 25 28 0 30 26

5 0 90 90 75 75 73 100 70 74

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 6 6 0000000 0

4 34 54 28 48 48 53 5 54 45

5 0 46 73 53 53 48 95 46 55

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 6 9 0000000 0

4 31 13 11 26 26 29 0 31 28

5 0 88 89 74 74 71 100 69 73

R I P Yellow-breasted chat EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 5 5 0000000 0

3 45 49 41 54 48 61 39 65 54

4 0 51 59 46 53 39 61 35 46

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 0 0000000 0

3 40 36 30 41 34 50 28 53 50

4 0 64 70 59 66 50 73 48 50

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 5 5 0000000 0

3 45 49 44 55 46 63 40 66 61

4 0 51 56 44 54 38 60 34 39

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 0 0000000 0

3 40 36 30 41 34 50 28 53 50

4 0 64 70 59 66 50 73 48 50

5 00000000 0

WD Ash-throated flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 1 15 24 10 0 0 0 0 0 5

2 63 65 58 58 13 13 10 29 48

3 23 11 30 30 51 51 46 40 35

4 0 0 3 3 31 31 39 31 13

5 00005550 0

Terrestrial 663
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 1 5 2 4 550005 0

2 63 65 53 53 20 23 13 46 39

3 23 11 35 35 54 54 50 41 43

4 0 0 8 8 26 24 38 8 19

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 15 24 10 10 0 0 0 0 5

2 61 64 56 56 13 13 10 29 46

3 24 13 31 31 50 50 45 39 36

4 00 3 3 33 33 40 33 13

5 00005550 0

UCRBCumEff 1 1 5 2 4 550003 0

2 61 64 53 53 20 23 13 41 39

3 24 13 35 35 54 54 50 39 43

4 00 8 8 26 24 38 13 19

5 00000005 0

W D Bushtit EEISBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 0 25 20 20 25 0 30 0 0

3 100 65 55 55 60 50 60 50 60

4 0 10 25 25 15 50 10 50 40

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 0 25 20 20 25 0 30 0 0

3 100 65 55 55 60 50 60 50 60

4 0 10 25 25 15 50 10 50 40

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 0 25 15 15 25 0 25 0 0

3 65 65 55 55 65 50 55 50 60

4 35 10 30 30 10 50 20 50 40

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 0 25 15 15 25 0 25 0 0

3 65 65 55 55 65 50 55 50 60

4 35 10 30 30 10 50 20 50 40

5 00000000 0

WD Chipping sparrow EEISBLM/FS 1 95 93 93 93 93 95 93 95 95

2 58888585 5

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 95 86 60 61 61 64 60 66 64

2 5 14 40 39 39 36 40 34 36

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBBLM/FS 1 95 93 93 93 93 95 93 95 95

2 58888585 5

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

664 Terrestrial
Table 4.15 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff 1 95 86 60 61 61 64 60 66 64

2 5 14 40 39 39 36 40 34 36

3 00000000 0

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

W D Green-tailed towhee EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 35 58 26 50 50 56 26 55 49

3 65 43 71 50 50 44 71 45 51

4 00300030 0

5 00000000 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 35 58 26 50 50 56 26 55 49

3 65 43 71 50 50 44 71 45 51

4 00300030 0

5 00000000 0

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 35 58 26 50 50 56 26 55 49

3 65 43 71 50 50 44 71 45 51

4 00300030 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 35 58 26 50 50 56 26 55 49

3 65 43 71 50 50 44 71 45 51

4 00300030 0

5 00000000 0

'Group: FOR - forest birds; GS - grassland/shrub birds; RIP - riparian birds; WD - woodland birds.

JArca: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

Table 4.16. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of cuckoos, hummingbirds, and passerines for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted

mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

FOR Black-chinned

hummingbird EEIS BLM/FS 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.0 3.1

EElSCumEff 2.8 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.1 3.2

UCRB BLM/FS 2.8 3.1 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.0 3.1

UCRBCumEff 2.8 3.2 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.6 3.1 3.2

Terrestrial 6©S
Table 4.16 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

FOR Broad-tailed

hummingbird UCRB BLM/FS 2.4 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.1 3.6 3.1 3.2

UCRBCumEff 2.4 3.5 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.3 3.7 3.2 3.3

FOR Chestnut-backed

chickadee EEIS BLM/FS 3.2 3.3 3.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.6 3.0 2.6

EElSCumEff 3.2 3.3 3.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.6 3.0 2.6

UCRB BLM/FS 2.8 3.2 3.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.6 3.0 2.6

UCRBCumEff 2.8 3.2 3.8 2.8 2.8 3.0 3.6 3.0 2.6

FOR Hammond's flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 1.7 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.7 2.9* 3.8 2.84 2.94

EElSCumEff 1.3 3.5 3.8 3.6 3.8 3.2 4.0 3.1 3.1

UCRB BLM/FS 1.7 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.7 2.9 3.8 2.84 2.9

UCRBCumEff 1.3 3.4 3.8 3.5 3.8 3.2 4.04 3.1 3.1

FOR Lazuli bunting EEIS BLM/FS 2.6 2.8 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.6 3.0 2.6 2.6

EElSCumEff 2.6 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.0 2.9 3.1 2.8 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.6 2.6 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.5

UCRBCumEff 2.4 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.0 2.7 2.8

FOR Olive-sided flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 1.2 3.4 3.5 3.3 3.5 3.2 3.6 3.1 3.2

EElSCumEff 1.2 3.4 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.5 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.2 3.2 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.1

UCRBCumEff 1.2 3.3 3.6 3.6 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.4

FOR Rufous hummingbird EEIS BLM/FS 2.4 2.6 2.9 2.6 2.9 2.6 3.0 2.5 2.5

EElSCumEff 2.4 2.8 3.34 3.1 3.34 3.0 3.44 3.0 3.0

UCRB BLM/FS 2.3 2.5 2.9 2.7 2.8 2.5 3.04 2.5 2.5

UCRBCumEff 2.3 2.8 3.3" 3.1 3.34 3.0 3.44 3.0 3.0

FOR Rufous-sided towhee EEIS BLM/FS 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5

EElSCumEff 2.6 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.5 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5

UCRBCumEff 2.5 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.4 2.5 2.4 2.5 2.5

FOR Western bluebird EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 3.0 3.54 2.8 2.7 2.44 2.7 2.34 2.6

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.1 3.84 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.2 3.0 3.54 2.8 2.7 2.44 2.7 2.3" 2.6

UCRBCumEff 2.2 3.1 3.8" 2.9 2.8 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.9

FOR Western tanager EEIS BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1

EElSCumEff 1.1 1.1 1.74 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.74 1.5 1.5

UCRB BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.3 1.1 1.1

UCRBCumEff 1.1 1.1 1.74 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.74 1.5 1.5

FOR White-winged crossbill EEIS BLM/FS 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.0 2.9

EElSCumEff 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.7

UCRB BLM/FS 3.0 3.0 3.4 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.4 3.0 2.9

UCRBCumEff 2.9 2.9 3.3 2.9 3.1 3.0 3.3 2.9 2.7

FOR Wilson's warbler EEIS BLM/FS 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.3

EElSCumEff 3.2 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.3

UCRB BLM/FS 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.3

UCRBCumEff 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.3

FOR Winter wren EEIS BLM/FS 2.2 3.0 3.64 3.54 3.5 3.0 3.64 2.8 3.2

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.5 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.4 3.8 3.2 3.6

UCRB BLM/FS 2.0 2.9 3.3 3.2 3.2 2.8 3.44 2.7 3.0

UCRBCumEff 2.0 3.3 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.3 3.8 3.2 3.5

658 Terrestrial
Table 4.16 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Group' Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

GS Black rosy finch EEIS BLM/FS 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.0

EElSCumEff 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.3 4.0 4.0 4.3 4.0 4.0

UCRB BLM/FS 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

UCRBCumEff 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0

GS Bobolink EEIS BLM/FS 3.7 4.4 4.6 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.6 4.1 4.3

EElSCumEff 3.4 4.6 4.7 4.2 4.2 4.4 4.7 4.3 4.5

UCRB BLM/FS 3.3 4.3 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.0 4.5 4.0 4.1

UCRBCumEff 3.3 4.4 4.5 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.6 4.2 4.2

GS Brewer's blackbird EEIS BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.1

EElSCumEff 1.1 1.5 2.14 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.14 1.9 2.0

UCRB BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.2 1.1 1.4 1.1 1.1

UCRBCumEff 1.1 1.5 1.9 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.14 1.9 2.0

GS Brewer's sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1.3 1.4 2.8" 2.8" 2.84 2.84 2.94 2.64 3.04

EElSCumEff 1.3 2.3 3.2" 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.14 3.34

UCRB BLM/FS 1.4 2.0 2.94 2.84 2.8" 2.84 2.94 2.5" 2.9"

UCRBCumEff 1.3 2.6 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.3" 3.34 3.1 3.34

GS Grasshopper sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 3.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.9

EElSCumEff 1.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 5.0 4.8 5.0 4.7 4:9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.8 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.2 4.0 4.1 3.8 4.0

UCRB CumEff 2.6 3.9 3.9 3.9 4.0 3.8 3.9 3.6 3.8

GS Horned lark EEIS BLM/FS 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3

EElSCumEff 2.5 1.5 2.3" 2.3" 2.34 2.34 2.44 2.3" 2.34

UCRB BLM/FS 2.5 1.5 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.5 1.3 1.3

UCRBCumEff 2.5 1.5 2.34 2.34 2.34 2.3" 2.44 2.34 2.3"

GS Lark sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1.3 1.4 2.84 2.8" 2.8" 2.84 2.9" 2.6" 3.0"

EElSCumEff 1.3 2.5 3.24 3.2" 3.2" 3.24 3.34 3.14 3.24

UCRB BLM/FS 1.4 2.0 2.94 2.84 2.84 2.8" 2.94 2.54 2.94

UCRBCumEff 1.4 2.6 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.34 3.1 3.3"

GS Loggerhead shrike EEIS BLM/FS 1.7 2.3 3.0" 3.04 3.04 2.94 3.0" 2.8 3.04

EElSCumEff 1.7 2.8 3.44 3.5" 3.5" 3.2 3.54 3.3" 3.64

UCRB BLM/FS 1.7 2.3 2.94 2.9" 2.9" 2.94 2.7 2.9" 3.04

UCRBCumEff 1.7 2.8 3.44 3.44 3.44 3.2 3.5" 3.34 3.54

GS Sage sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1.2 1.3 2.5" 2.54 2.5" 2.4" 2.6" 2.34 2.6"

EElSCum/Eff 1.2 2.4 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.14 2.8 3.1"

UCRB BLM/FS 1.2 1.3 2.54 2.5" 2.54 2.44 2.64 2.34 2.64

UCRBCumEff 1.2 2.4 3.14 3.14 3.14 3.1" 3.14 2.8 3.14

GS Sage thrasher EEIS BLM/FS 1.3 1.4 2.84 2.84 2.8" 2.84 2.94 2.64 3.0"

EElSCumEff 1.3 2.5 3.24 3.2" 3.24 3.24 3.2" 2.8 3.24

UCRB BLM/FS 1.4 1.8 2.9" 2.84 2.84 2.8" 2.9" 2.54 2.9"

UCRBCumEff 1.3 2.6 3.2" 3.24 3.2" 3.2" 3.24 3.0 3.3"

GS Vesper sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1.2 1.4 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.8 1.94 1.7 1.94

EElSCumEff 1.1 1.7 2.44 2.4" 2.44 2.34 2.44 2.2 2.4"

UCRB BLM/FS 1.2 1.3 1.94 1.94 1.94 1.8 1.94 1.7 1.9"

UCRBCumEff 1.1 1.7 2.4" 2.44 2.44 2.34 2.4" 2.44 2.44

GS Western meadowlark EEIS BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4

EElSCumEff 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.6" 1.5 1.6

UCRB BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4 1.3 1.4

UCRBCumEff 1.1 1.1 1.6 1.6 1.6 1.5 1.64 1.5 1.6

Terrestrial 65?
Table 4.16 (continued)

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

RIP Red-eyed vireo EEIS BLM/FS 3.4 3.7 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.6

EElSCumEff 3.3 3.7 3.8 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.7

UCRB BLM/FS 3.4 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.5

UCRBCumEff 3.3 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.6 3.8 3.6 3.6

RIP Red-winged blackbird EEIS BLM/FS 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.7 2.3 2.3

EElSCumEff 2.1 2.5 3.14 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.14 2.9 2.9

UCRB BLM/FS 2.1 2.4 2.7 2.3 2.3 2.3 2.6 2.3 2.3

UCRBCumEff 2.1 2.5 3.14 2.9 2.9 2.8 3.14 2.8 2.8

RIP Veery EEIS BLM/FS 2.7 3.3 3.4 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.5 3.2 3.3

EElSCumEff 2.7 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.7 3.4 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.4 3.3 3.4 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.4 3.1 3.2

UCRBCumEff 2.4 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.5

RIP Willow flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 2.6 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.4

EElSCumEff 2.5 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6

UCRB BLM/FS 2.6 3.4 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.4

UCRBCumEff 2.4 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.6

RIP Yellow warbler EEIS BLM/FS 2.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3

EElSCumEff 2.4 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.4 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.4 3.3 3.5 3.3 3.3

UCRBCumEff 2.4 3.5 3.7 3.6 3.6 3.5 3.7 3.4 3.5

RIP Yellow-billed cuckoo EEIS BLM/FS 3.5 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6

EElSCumEff 3.4 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.8 4.8 5.0 4.7 4.7

UCRB BLM/FS 3.3 4.5 4.8 4.6 4.6 4.5 5.0 4.5 4.6

UCRBCumEff 3.3 4.9 4.9 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0 4.7 4.8

RIP Yellow-breasted chat EEIS BLM/FS 2.5 3.5 3.6 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.6 3.4 3.5

EElSCumEff 2.4 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.5 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.5 3.4 3.6 3.3 3.4

UCRBCumEff 2.4 3.6 3.7 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.8 3.5 3.5

WD Ash-throated flycatcher EEIS BLM/FS 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.3 3.3" 3.3" 3.44 3.04 2.64

EElSCumEff 2.1 1.9 2.54 2.5" 3.14 3.0" 3.34 2.5" 2.84

UCRB BLM/FS 2.1 1.9 2.3 2.3 3.34 3.34 3.44 3.04 2.64

UCRBCumEff 2.1 1.9 2.54 2.54 3.14 3.04 3.34 2.84 2.84

WD Bushtit EEIS BLM/FS 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.54 2.8 3.54 3.44

EElSCumEff 3.0 2.9 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.54 2.8 3.54 3.44

UCRB BLM/FS 3.4 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.54 3.0 3.54 3.4"

UCRBCumEff 3.4 2.9 3.2 3.2 2.9 3.54 3.0 3.54 3.44

WD Chipping sparrow EEIS BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

EElSCumEff 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4

UCRB BLM/FS 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1

UCRBCumEff 1.1 1.1 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.4 1.3 1.4

WD Green-tailed towhee EEIS BLM/FS 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5

EElSCumEff 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5

UCRB BLM/FS 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5

UCRBCumEff 2.7 2.5 2.8 2.5 2.5 2.4 2.8 2.5 2.5

'Group: FOR - forest birds; GS - grassland/shrub birds; RIP - riparian birds; WD - woodland birds.

'Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be misleading.

6SS Terrestrial
Mammals habitat projections, and clarification of riparian

standards. An underestimation of large snag retenp t tion under the alternatives at year 100 and the

tendency of panelists to reflect population, rather

Introduction—The panel considered the fringed than habitat effects in the BLM and Forest Service

myotis, hoary bat, long-eared myotis, long-legged habitat evaluation, were also addressed. Results are

myotis, pale western big-eared bat, silver-haired shown in table 4.17, which displays mean outbat, spotted bat, western pipistrelle, western small- comes, and table 4.18, which displays the weightfooted myotis and the Yuma myotis when evaluat- ed mean outcomes. The weighted means for each

ing the effects of the preliminary draft EIS alter- alternative are shown in figure 4.36. The number

natives. The process used to select species for eval- of species whose weighted mean fell into each

uation under the alternatives is outlined in the outcome class under each alternative is shown in

section "Methods for Assessing Effect on figure 4.37. The numbers of species whose

Terrestrial Species." All of the bats except hoary, weighted mean outcome changed by more than

silver-haired, and western pipistrelle were initially one-half of an outcome class between current and

included because they were Federal C2 Candidate the projected future under each alternative are

species for federal listing as endangered or threat- shown in figure 4.38.

ened. The other three species were evaluated _. . TT1 . ., rr.r*, , TM

because of past population declines, and/or Discussion—Habitat outside of BLM- and FSbecause their habitat has declined from historic administered lands has been significantly altered

levels or would potentially decline under one or ^ conversion to agricultural and urban uses.

more of the alternatives. Habitat on BLM- and Forest Service-administered

lands, although reduced in acreage rrom historic

Methods—During the panel discussions, the conditions, has been impacted less than the habiwestern pipistrelle was dropped from further con- tat on non-Federal lands and plays an important

sideration because we judged that alternatives role in providing habitat for these bats. Restorawould not strongly influence its habitat. The tion of historic habitat conditions across the

Yuma myotis was not rated by panelists because Federal landscape would make a significant conanalysis at a finer scale was determined to be more tribution to re-establishment or retention of bat

appropriate for this species. populations throughout the Basin.

The bat panel developed a summary of character- Projected outcomes for habitat on BLM- and

istics of the alternatives key to evaluating the Forest Service-administered lands were similar for

effects on bats. The most important parameters all the bat species and indicate that current habitat

for evaluating bat habitat under the alternatives on these lands has declined from historic condiwere: acres of late-serai lower montane and mon- tions (fig. 4.36). Habitat conditions for most bat

tane forest habitat maintained through time; snag species have declined significantly on BLM- and

and down wood standards; riparian management FS-administered lands from historic to current

standards; projected road density; and cliff, mine, conditions (table 4.18). The exception is the spotand cave management standards. ted bat whose habitat was patchy and isolated even

_ , r . . i r i under historic conditions and is not projected to

Results—After reviewing results of the expert haye dedmed si ificantl on Federal lands from

panel, the Science Team adjusted the bat species historic M currem condidons (table 4.18) The his.

outcomes for the BLM and Forest Service habitat ^ ^.^ for most ks ^ from increased

evaluation. These adjustments reflected additional human disturbance of roosts> reduced {

information on Alternatives 2 and 7 that had been ^^ ^^ e md distribution of

obtained after pane deliberations were completed; ^^ bwer momane ^ momane forest) and

the information included corrections of late-serai reduced acfeage and quality of riparian areas

Terrestrial 6SB
Habitat for three species (fringed myotis, hoary pine snags, or in live ponderosa pine with long,

bat, and western small-footed myotis) was project- vertical cracks. These snag and live tree roosts

ed to continue declining significantly under were located in stringers of ponderosa pine within

Alternative 5, and habitat for these three species pure pinyon/juniper habitats or at the interface of

plus the silver-haired bat is projected to decline these two habitats (Chung-MacCoubrey, in press),

under Alternative 1 (table 4.18). Under Fringed myotis have also been found in mines

Alternatives 2, 3, and 7, habitat outcomes for (Perkins and others 1990). Fringed myotis are

BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands were considered to be between-, within-, and belowprojected to remain similar to current habitat con- canopy foragers (Black 1974).

ditions for most species (fig. 4.38). Habitat quali- . . . . . .

ty, quantity, and distribution were projected to

 FrmSed m>;otls

 ^ coTMdered to be ^ sensltlve

increase from current conditions for one species

 to human d'sturba

»

ce

- Therefore, road density

under Alternatives 4 and 6 (fig. 4.38). Alternatives ^ TM imP°«ant factor in evaluating alternatives.

4 and 6 generally increase late serai forest and <f ve TMd TMne protection was not specified in the

snags, improve riparian conditions, and reduce the Alternatives and initial panelist judgments reflectlikelihood of human disturbance.

 ed ±ls throu8h lower outcomfs

; Late* adjustments to outcomes were based, in part, on hirther

Projections of cumulative effects for bat popula- specifying standards for cliff, cave, and mine mantions followed a pattern similar to the outcomes agement to ensure protection of these species,

for Federal lands, but outcomes were generally Current habitat outcomes on BLM- and Forest

poorer when cumulative effects were considered. Service-administered lands for fringed myotis are

Historic bat populations throughout the entire projected to have declined one outcome from hisBasin landscape were projected as Outcome 2 or toric conditions. Outcome under Alternative 1

3 for most of these bats (the spotted bat is would continue to decline 0.5 outcome units over

described as being in Outcome 4 historically). a 100-year period (to slightly less than Outcome

Change in habitat across all ownerships and 4). Alternatives 3 and 5 produce outcomes similar

other cumulative effects have led to increased to Alternative 1. Alternatives 2, 4, 6, and 7 result

patchiness and isolation of populations. In addi- in outcomes at or above current conditions

tion to the factors associated with the Federal because of increased large snags, increased latehabitat declines on Federal lands, overall popula- serai habitat, reduced timber harvest levels,

tion declines have been attributed to effects of reduced human disturbance, improved riparian

pesticides, unregulated killing, changes in habitat conditions, and reduced areas of high road

on non-Federal lands, water quality issues not density.

related to habitat management on Federal lands, T T . „. ,-1 1 i

air quality issues, and effects from outside the

 Hoar

y

 bat" Thejange

 °[the hoarv ^ encomr> • passes the entire Basin. I his bat is a wide-ranging

and long-lived species (20-year longevity). An

Fringed myotis. The range of fringed myotis Oregon study suggests that male hoary bats prefer

encompasses most of the EEIS area, except parts Douglas-fir/western hemlock forests that are older

of northeastern Washington and southeastern than 200 years. Older trees most likely provide

Oregon, and part of the Upper Clark Fork region shelter, open space to gain flight when leaving the

in Montana. Members of the genus Myotis are roost, and immediate accessibility to the roost site

most often detected in mature stands but may also upon return (Perkins and Cross 1988).

be observed in younger, managed stands (Erickson . . . . . . . . . .

and West, in press). In New Mexico, colonial

 Panel members

 considered late-serai habitat,

roosts containing 30 to more than 200 fringed snags, and riparian habitat of greatest significance

myotis bats were found in individual ponderosa

 m evaluatmg alternatives. As a result, habitat on

668 Terrestrial
BLM- and Forest Service-administered lands was limestone caves that were 5 to 150 meters from

judged to have been reduced from Outcome 2 permanent streams (Marcot 1984). In a search of

under historic conditions, to approximately 650 caves and mines and 70 buildings in the

Outcome 3 currently. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 Pacific Northwest during the winters of 1982 to

were projected to result in continued habitat 1989, long-eared bats were found in caves and

reduction on Federal lands, whereas Alternatives one garage (Perkins and others 1990). Panelists

4, 6, and 7 were projected to result in slight indicated that roosting within the assessment area

improvements in habitat conditions. may be occurring in rocks because preferred habitat is not available. Important factors in evaluating

Long-eared bat. The range of the long-eared bat alternatives for this species were maintenance of

encompasses the entire Basin. Like other members mine operungs/cliffs/caves/talUS) riparian condiof the genus Myotis, long-eared bats are detected don (structural and vegetative diversity), protecin all stands with a variety of structures, but are don rf intermittent streams (these bats glean in

most often detected in mature stands (Enckson fou of rf ian zones); and old forest phvsiolo_

and West, in press). In New Mexico, maternity and stmctures including snags. As a result, the

roosts of long-eared myotis were located in live cflfects of ^ alternatives are similar to those

and dead junipers. Hibernacula of long-eared described for the hoary bat.

myotis in northwest California were located in

Figure 4.36 Bats

EEIS UCRB

1

 I—i n—I 1 I 1 n 1

Federal Cumulative Federal Cumulative

» Q- • Q

2 - 2 - "———

<D

p

\ ri .a. /""H \ ra, ..B. /'""H

•&.-

&

-H' ••gf •B>>-*-'H' *-tf

5 LJ—i—i—i—i—i—i—i—J 5 L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1_

H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

Alternative Alternative

Figure 4.36. Mean outcome scores averaged over eight species of bats in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas for historic, current,

and projected future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions

on Federal lands only; dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative

purposes only; they do not imply trends between alternatives.

Terrestrial 6&t
Figure 4.37 Bats

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.37. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for eight species of bats on Federal lands in the EEIS and

UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and projected future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. See

"Methods for Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges of weighted mean

outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Figure 4.38 Bats

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.38. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions to each alternative for eight species of bats

in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Terrestrial
Table 4.17. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for bats and small mammals for evaluation of

ICBEMP management alternatives. Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points.

High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood

scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

B A T Fringed myotis EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 3 5 0010205 7

3 63 33 17 43 22 43 10 47 45

4 2 60 47 49 55 43 50 41 42

5 0 7 36 7 23 12 40 7 6

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 3 5 0000000 0

3 63 22 0 0 0 3 0 15 10

4 2 65 20 37 38 47 30 48 40

5 0 13 80 63 62 50 70 37 50

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 2 8 0010508 7

3 70 33 17 43 32 48 30 54 45

4 2 60 48 50 57 45 46 36 42

5 07 35 611 2 24 2 6

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 3 5 0000000 0

3 63 22 0 0 0 3 0 15 10

4 2 65 22 43 40 47 35 53 43

5 0 13 78 57 60 50 65 32 47

B A T Hoary ba t EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 78 6 0 10 0 14 0 24 22

3 22 70 43 40 44 50 40 47 34

4 0 22 47 36 48 31 40 26 28

5 0 2 10 14 8 5 20 3 16

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 7 8 0000000 0

3 22 56 13 10 14 20 8 37 18

4 0 30 37 48 38 51 30 42 52

5 0 14 50 42 48 29 62 21 30

UCRB BLM/FS6 1 00000000 0

2 78 4 0 6 0 14 0 24 20

3 22 70 45 40 48 49 40 44 30

4 0 24 48 42 33 33 46 26 36

5 0 2 7 12 19 4 14 6 14

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 7 8 0000000 0

3 22 56 5 8 8 20 8 36 17

4 0 30 40 50 40 54 31 43 53

5 0 14 55 42 52 26 61 21 30

B A T Long-eared myotis EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 62 0 0 5 0 10 0 15 10

3 38 50 36 47 45 50 39 50 50

4 0 44 56 37 46 35 56 30 30

5 06 8 1 1 955 5 1 0

Terrestrial 663
Table 4.17 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 2 0000000 0

3 38 28 8 16 10 19 6 29 21

4 0 56 38 42 44 48 40 43 51

5 0 16 54 42 46 33 54 28 28

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 62 0 0 5 0 5 0 15 10

3 38 50 37 47 46 55 40 50 50

4 0 44 57 37 47 35 48 30 30

5 0 6 6 11 7 5 12 5 10

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 2 0000000 0

3 38 28 8 10 10 19 10 29 21

4 0 56 39 43 45 48 36 42 49

5 0 16 53 47 45 33 54 29 30

BAT Long-legged

myotis EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 65 0 0 5 0 14 0 20 13

3 35 44 24 44 52 56 34 62 45

4 0 46 54 42 36 30 54 18 42

5 0 10 22 9 12 0 12 0 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 5 0000000 0

3 35 23 0 10 5 5 0 19 15

4 0 58 30 44 43 61 30 46 50

5 0 20 70 46 53 34 70 35 35

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 65 0 0 5 0 11 0 16 13

3 35 44 35 44 54 60 45 64 50

4 0 46 46 45 36 25 50 18 30

5 0 10 19 6 10 4 5 2 7

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 5 0000000 0

3 35 23 0 5 5 5 0 19 15

4 0 58 31 41 44 59 30 50 53

5 0 20 69 54 51 36 70 31 33

BAT Pale western

big-eared ba t EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 60000000 0

3 78 12 2 12 10 13 8 25 20

4 14 72 52 78 64 78 58 67 69

5 2 16 46 10 26 9 34 8 11

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 60000000 0

3 7 8 1 2 000205 3

4 14 68 24 38 44 46 20 58 40

5 2 20 76 62 56 52 80 37 57

€84 Terrestrial
Table 4.17 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBBLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 60000000 0

3 78 12 2 12 12 13 8 35 30

4 14 72 54 78 64 79 58 61 59

5 2 16 44 10 24 8 34 4 11

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 60000000 0

3 7 8 1 2 000205 3

4 14 70 25 39 45 44 20 59 41

5 2 18 75 61 55 54 80 36 56

B A T Silver-haired ba t EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 52 2 0 5 5 15 0 18 10

3 46 54 30 62 65 63 49 65 63

4 2 44 48 22 26 18 38 16 22

5 0 0 22 11 4 4 13 1 5

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 0 0000207 0

3 40 40 7 22 16 26 8 41 18

4 0 46 42 47 37 32 33 37 43

5 0 14 51 31 47 40 59 15 39

UCRBBLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 52 2 0 5 8 18 8 22 10

3 46 54 34 60 62 61 41 65 62

4 2 44 44 29 26 17 31 10 25

5 0 0 2 2 64 4 2 0 3 3

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 6 0 0000207 0

3 40 40 7 19 16 26 8 40 18

4 0 46 43 45 37 33 36 37 43

5 0 14 50 36 47 39 56 16 39

B A T Spotted ba t EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 55330303 5

4 90 75 55 63 53 65 45 73 75

5 5 20 43 35 48 33 55 25 20

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50000000 0

4 90 60 43 48 35 53 30 63 55

5 5 40 58 53 65 48 70 38 45

UCRBBLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 55330303 5

4 90 75 58 65 53 68 45 75 75

5 5 20 40 33 48 30 55 23 20

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 50000000 0

4 90 60 45 50 35 55 33 65 55

5 5 40 55 50 65 45 68 35 45

Terrestrial 66S
Table 4.17 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group' Species Name Area3 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

BAT Western smallfooted myotis EEIS BLM/FS5

 1 00000000 0

2 80 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 10

3 20 70 0 60 50 50 0 60 60

4 0 30 70 20 30 30 70 20 30

5 0 0 30 10 20 20 30 10 0

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 80 0 0 10 0 0 0 10 10

3 20 70 0 60 50 50 0 60 60

4 0 30 70 20 30 30 70 20 30

5 0 0 30 10 20 20 30 10 0

SMM Northern flying

squirrel EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 90 15 0 18 15 24 4 30 25

3 10 40 29 51 55 51 49 54 54

4 0 33 51 21 20 20 38 10 21

5 0 13 20 10 10 5 9 6 0

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 8 3 1 0 000000 0

3 18 43 5 18 10 18 10 25 20

4 0 33 43 49 48 44 39 48 .49

5 0 15 53 34 43 39 51 28 31

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 90 15 0 21 16 25 5 28 26

3 10 40 40 45 45 53 50 55 55

4 0 33 32 30 30 20 25 15 10

5 0 13 28 4 9 2 20 2 9

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 8 3 1 0 000000 0

3 18 45 5 13 10 20 10 25 20

4 0 33 46 53 51 45 43 49 49

5 0 13 49 35 39 35 48 26 31

S M M Pygmy rabbit EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 4 0 0000000 0

4 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5 10 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 4 0 0000000 0

4 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5 10 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

SMM White-tailed

jackrabbit EEIS BLM/FS 1 2 0 0000000 0

2 80 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

3 0 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

688 Terrestrial
Table 4.17 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 2 0 0000000 0

2 80 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

3 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

4 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

5 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

UCRBBLM/FS 1 2 0 0000000 0

2 80 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

3 0 80 80 80 80 80 80 80 80

4 00000000 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 2 0 0000000 0

2 80 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

3 0 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20

4 0 60 60 60 60 60 60 60 60

5 0 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

'Group: BAT - bat; SMM - small mammal.

2Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

3Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

Long-legged bat. The range of the long-legged that males show a strong tendency to roost alone

bat encompasses the entire Basin. A search of 650 while clusters were almost exclusively composed of

caves and mines and 70 buildings in the Pacific females (Perimeter, in press). In a southern

Northwest found long-legged myotis to be the Alberta, Canada study, long-legged myotis fed

only species hibernating in a cluster (Perkins and high above ground and along cliff edges and the

others 1990). A radio-telemetry study of female diet was primarily Lepidopteran moths (Saunders

long-legged bats in the central Cascades of and Barclay 1992). The types of broad habitats

Oregon suggested a non-random pattern of day and the pattern of panelists judgments were simiroost selection by individual bats. Bats radio- lar to those described for the hoary bat.

marked at the same night roost were generally . . .. _. ...

found at separate day roosts. The study recom-

 Pa^e

 western big-eared bat. The range of the

mended maximizing day roost opportunities by Pde western big-eared bat encompasses the entire

managing for both solitary and multiple clusters

 Basm' TMe dl«nbution is highly dependent on

of day roost structures throughout forested drain-

 caves and mmes and'to a les?5r ex/ent'.forest

ages of the central Oregon Cascades (Ormsbee, in management practices that affect foraging areas.

press). A second study in the central Cascades TMe ^0 TM)TM actlons that have hf

 on^\

indicated that long-legged myotis differentially f^

 the

 P^f western big-eared bat have been

select larger bridges (which maintain higher night- disturbance and destruction of roost sites. In a

time temperatures than do smaller bridges) and stand-level survey of bat activity within managed

forests in the Pacific Northwest (1993-1994) the

Terrestrial 68?
highest detection rates were in clearcut stands. No tends to pull away from the bole providing

detections were made in young, unthinned stands crevices for shelter. The oldest Douglas-fir stands

(Erickson and West, in press). Hibernacula of the provide the greatest number of snags with exfolispecies were studied on the Shasta-Trinity ating bark, cracks, and excavations of cavityNational Forest in four limestone caves (Marcot nesting birds. Older ponderosa pine does not pro1984). Pale western big-eared bats in these hiber- vide as many roost sites because bark ridges are

nacula were found singly or in groups of 3 to 50 not as deep as are those of Douglas-fir, and bark

individuals. exfoliation occurs in thin plates and does not creT . /- i i • i i ar£

 deep crevices. In the southern-Washington

Important features of the alternatives that panel- Cascades and ^ Q ^^ ^ b* ^,

ists considered for this species were large-diameter was [n old rowth Do las_fir forests

snag densities maintaining mine openings/ than irfmature or tree stands The high

chffs/caves/talus, riparian condition (structural ^ of acdvi in these stands is bab, d*e to

and vegetative diversity), protection of intermit- ^ increased diversity and/or abundance of day

tent streams (these bats glean in foliage of riparian foosts ^ c ared with and mamre

zone), and projected road densities. Historic habi- stands D roosts of fiye silver.haired bats in

tat approximated Outcome 3. Current habitat has northeastern Oregon were located by radiodeclined to Outcome 4. Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 telemetry from 1994 to 1995. All roost sites were

would continue to reduce roost site availability m trees . from ^ fQ 22 inches dbh> and

and increase levels of disturbance resulting in from lg w g2 ^ in ^ h{ £i ht of ^ u ^

reductions i n habitat o n BLM- an d ri-admims- JL- I U-J L j n

.... . . _ . , .. .. trees used by silver-haired bats were snags and all

tered land. Alternatives 2 and 4 would maintain r j i /D • \ r>

...... . . . were on forested slopes (Betts, in press). Roost site

current habitat levels by improving snag and preferences of silver-haired bats were studied just

riparian conditions and reducing the density of nofth of ^ Umted States border in southern

open roads. It was assumed that cave and mine ^^ Columbia where approximatelv 15 roost

protection would increase as part of the alterna- trees wefe found w^ ^Q ions> ^ roosts

tives. Alternatives 6 and 7 were judged to slightly were ^ abandoned woodpecker cavities and were

improve habitat conditions on Federal lands for commom found in both aspen and Douglas-fir

pale western bit;eared bat by implementing addi- (Vonhof) Jn ess)

tional broad-scale ecosystem restoration or retention and increasing protection of cave/mine/clifF Panelists determined that features of the alternahabitat. tives that increased large trees, snags, and riparian

„., ... . ~, r i -i 1.1 conditions would be most beneficial to this

Silver-haired bat. 1 he ranee or the silver-haired • u i • -jj u JI-J T

. . ° . . . _ .„ species. Habitat was judged to have declined rrom

bat encompasses the entire Basin In the Pacific ^^ Outcomes 2 an

&

d 3 to between Qut.

Northwest, a stand-level survey of bat activity comes 3 and 4 from ^^ M currem Altema.

within managed forests (1993-1994) detected ^ { ^ 5 were jud d M ^^ in ^^

silver-haired bats most frequently in clearcuts and j^^ b IQQ> { { because fcwer

did not record them in mature stands (tnckson uu-j j j • • j--

. .„, ... . _

v

 . would be provided, and riparian conditions were

and West, in press). However, in an Oregon study, \ r j- •

„ . . iX /,r.oo\ r i • T- i-r not expected to improve rrom current conditions,

rerkins and Cross (19oo) round a signihcant dir- AH L i • j •

r

 . r -i i • i i • AH other alternatives were expected to improve

rerence in captures or silver-haired bats in ,• • c i. -u r- j

_.„

 r

 ...... . . . conditions ror the species because or increased

Uouelas-hr stands, 10U years old or greater, when • (. j j- • JT

° . . . . ' . iri riparian quality and diversity, increased large snag

compared with ponderosa pine stands of the same ^^ and -^^ late-serai forests,

age and younger stands or Uouglas-nr and ponderosa pine. The bark of older Douglas-fir trees

668 Terrestrial
Table 4.18. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of bats and small mammals for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

BAT Fringed myotis EEIS BLM/FS4 2.7 3.7 4.2 3.6 4.0 3.7 4.35 3.5 3.5

EElSCumEff 2.7 3.9 4.85 4.65 4.6s 4.55 4.75 4.2 4.4

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.7 3.7 4.2 3.6 3.8 3.4 3.9 3.3 3.5

UCRBCumEff 2.7 3.9 4.85 4.6s 4.65 4.55 4.75 4.2 4.4

BAT Hoary bat EEIS BLM/FS4 2.2 3.2 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.3 3.85 3.1 3.4

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.6 4.45 4.35 4.35 4.15 4.55 3.8 4.15

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.2 3.2 3.6 3.6 3.7 3.3 3.75 3.1 3.4

UCRBCumEff 2.2 3.6 4.55 4.35 4.45 4.1 4.55 3.9 4.15

BAT Long-eared myotis EEIS BLM/FS4 2.4 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.3 3.4

EElSCumEff 2.4 3.9 4.5s 4.3 4.4 4.1 4.55 4.0 4.1

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.4 3.6 3.7 3.5 3.6 3.4 3.7 3.3 3.4

UCRBCumEff 2.4 3.9 4.55 4.4 4.4 4.1 4.45 4.0 4.1

BAT Long-legged myotis EEIS BLM/FS4 2.4 3.7 4.0 3.6 3.6 3.25 3.8 3.05 3.3

EElSCumEff 2.4 4.0 4.75 4.4 4.55 4.3 4.75 4.2 4.2

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.4 3.7 3.8 3.5 3.6 3.2 3.6 3.15 3.3

UCRBCumEff 2.4 4.0 4.75 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.76 4.1 4.2

BAT Pale western big-eared bat EEIS BLM/FS4 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.2 4.0 4.3 3.8 3.9

EElSCumEff 3.1 4.1 4.85 4.65 4.6 4.5 4.8= 4.3 4.5

UCRB BLM/FS4 3.1 4.0 4.4 4.0 4.1 4.0 4.3 3.7 3.8

UCRBCumEff 3.1 4.1 4.85 4.65 4.6 4.5 4.85 4.3 4.5

BAT Silver-haired bat EEIS BLM/FS4 2.5 3.4 3.9s 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.6 3.0 3.2

EElSCumEff 2.4 3.7 4.45 4.1 4.35 4.1 4.55 3.6 4.2

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.5 3.4 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.1 3.6 2.9 3.2

UCRBCumEff 2.4 3.7 4.45 4.2 4.35 4.1 4.55 3.6 4.2

BAT Spotted bat EEIS BLM/FS4 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.3 4.2

EElSCumEff 4.0 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.5

UCRB BLM/FS4 4.0 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.2 4.2

UCRBCumEff 4.0 4.4 4.6 4.5 4.7 4.5 4.7 4.4 4.5

BAT Western small-footed

myotis EEIS BLM/FS4 2.2 2.3 4.35 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.35 3.3 3.2

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.2 3.3 4.3s 3.3 3.7 3.7 4.3s 3.3 3.2

SMM Northern flying squirrel EEIS BLM/FS4 2.1 3.5 3.9 3.2 3.3 3.1 3.5 2.95 3.05

EElSCumEff 2.2 3.6 4.55 4.25 4.45 4.36 4.45 4.15 4.15

UCRB BLM/FS4 2.1 3.5 3.9 3.2 3.3 3.0 3.6 2.95 3.0

UCRBCumEff 2.2 3.5 4.45 4.35 4.35 4.25 4.45 4.0 4.15

SMM Pygmy rabbit EEIS BLM/FS 3.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

UCRB BLM/FS 3.7 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

SMM White-tailed jackrabbit EEIS BLM/FS 1.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

EElSCumEff 1.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

UCRB BLM/FS 1.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8 2.8

UCRBCumEff 1.8 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7 3.7

'Group: BAT - bat; SMM - small mammal.

2Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

'Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table may be misleading.

Terrestrial ^69
Spotted bat. The range of the spotted bat The outcomes for western small-footed bat

encompasses the entire EEIS area and western and assumed that specific cave/mine/cliff/talus stansouthern Idaho. In British Columbia, spotted bats dards would be developed for the alternatives that

were found to roost in cliff faces and forage alone are consistent with the broad alternative themes,

in a variety of habitats, most actively over marshes Current habitat is judged to have declined from

and open ponderosa pine woodlands (Wai-Ping historic conditions (from Outcome 2 to Outcome

and Fenton 1989). Surveys in Northwestern 3). Further declines were judged to be likely

Colorado at Dinosaur National Monument found under Alternatives 1, 3, 4, and 5. Alternatives 2,

spotted bats using a wide range of habitats, from 6, and 7 were judged likely to result in higher

pinyon-juniper to riparian zones, from dusk to outcomes than current conditions through reducearly morning hours (Navo and others 1992). tion of human disturbance and by protection of

Spotted bats in British Columbia fed mainly on cave/mine sites,

moths (Wai-Ping and Fenton 1989).

The most important feature of the alternatives for

 Other SmaU Mammals

the spotted bat was protection of high cliff/forest Introduction—The species initially considered

interfaces at the tops of canyons. The spotted bat by the small mammal panel were selected through

is patchily distributed where this high cliff/forest the process described in "Methods for Assessing

interface is found. Because the species is very sen- Effects on Terrestrial Species." Species included in

sitive to disturbance, a vigorous survey of this the analysis were Preble s shrew, pygmy rabbit,

habitat is recommended in order to identify spe- Wyoming ground squirrel, white-tailed jackrabbit,

cific areas for protection. Panelists judged historic northern flying squirrel, and Uinta ground squirdistribution to approximate Outcome 4 because rel. Treble's shrew, pygmy rabbit, and Wyoming

of extremely patchy distribution throughout the ground squirrel were initially included because

Basin. Habitat condition is judged to have they were Candidate species (Category 2 or 3) for

declined due to recreational use, timber harvest, listing by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The

and other disturbance factors near cliffs. No alter- white-tailed jackrabbit, northern flying squirrel,

natives were judged to improve current habitat and Uinta ground squirrel were included because

conditions. Alternatives 6 and 7 were considered previous analyses suggested that habitat may

to maintain current habitat. have declined from historic to current conditions

Western small-footed bat. The range of the °r was ProJ

ected to decline under one or more

western small-footed myotis encompasses the ternatives.

entire Basin. During a search of 650 caves and Methods—During the panel discussions, Preble's

mines and 70 buildings in the Pacific Northwest shrew was dropped from further evaluation

(Perkins and others 1990), western small-footed because fine-scale analysis (at the 4th field HUG

bats were found using caves and mines as hiber- watershed or smaller scale) would be necessary to

nacula. Comparatively, in Pennsylvania, 52 per- address this species because of its local distribution

cent of occupied hibernacula were small caves of witnin the Basin. Wyoming ground squirrel was

less than 150 meters in length (Dunn and Hall dropped from analysis because the panelists agreed

1989). Gates and others (1984) recommended that major changes in habitat are not expected and

conducting cave surveys, implementing stronger agriculture probably benefits the species. Uinta

efforts to diminish or alleviate disturbance, ground squirrel was dropped from the analysis

acquiring or protecting caves with 30 or more because panelists did not have the background or

individuals, and monitoring populations in minor habitat information to evaluate the effects of the

and major hibernacula. alternatives on the species. We recommend that

this species be analyzed at a finer scale.

6HJ Terrestrial
Results—After reviewing results of the expert suppression were the primary factors considered in

panel, the SIT adjusted some of the outcomes for the evaluation of alternatives. The results for

the evaluation of habitat on BLM- and Forest Federal lands indicate that habitat has declined

Service-administered lands for the northern flying significantly from historic to current conditions

squirrel. These adjustments reflected additional (table 4.17). Changes due to cumulative effects

information on Alternatives 2 and 7 that was have been even greater. No distinct changes are

obtained after the panel deliberations had con- predicted under the alternatives. Cumulative

eluded. The information included corrections of effects on populations reflect the historic agricullate-seral habitat projections, and clarification of tural conversion from rangeland to row crops and

riparian standards. An underestimation of large no further significant changes are predicted.

snag retention under the alternatives at year 100 XT , a . ... f , j, , r ,. i . Northern Hying squirrel. 1 he range or the

and the tendency or panelists to emphasize popu- . n • • i r i j

, . i ill - j - • • i i northern flying squirrel encompasses rares t lands

lations rather than habitat conditions in the analy- , , L L ^Tc T» i- -j -r- j

ri i • T>-I\I j T-O j • • ji j throughout both Llc> areas. Panelists identified

sis or habitat on BLM- and rb-admimstered lands ,.

D

 . , r , • i i i i • r

, , j j r-> -i j i L • multi-stoned rarest stands as suitable habitat tor

were also addressed. Detailed results are shown in . ,, . . . . . . . .. , , ,

rabies 4 17 and 4 18 northern flying squirrels, and highlighted the

IdLJlCo T.I/ dllli T.JLO. . f . . r I • T importance or riparian zones tor the species. Large

Discussion— live trees and snags are breeding habitat for the

northern flying squirrels. Key considerations for

Pygmy rabbit. The pygmy rabbit is found pri- indude such fcamres as placement; decay

manly in the upland shrub habitats of southeast- state> diameter) height> proximity to other snags,

ern Oregon, southwestern Idaho, and northern presence of bark, and so on. Fungi are an imporNevada. The species is patchily distributed. There tam food hem during much of the year and are

are also remnant populations persisting in central more abundant in moist environments and near

eastern Washington (approximately 250 animals). down WQod This food SOUfce can be reduced as

The pygmy rabbit is strongly dependant on sage- a resuk of high.temperature burning and

brush, which comprises 99 percent of its winter compaction

diet. Dense sagebrush and relatively deep, loose

soil are important characteristics of pygmy rabbit The northern flying squirrel is sensitive to riparihabitat (Washington Department of Wildlife an habitat reduction, snag loss, and forest frag1993). mentation. Habitat on Federal lands is estimated

to have declined from 90 percent likelihood of

Agricultural development, sagebrush conversion, Outcome 2 under historic conditions to a current

and sagebrush removal were the primary factors levd of /3 percem iikeiihood of Outcomes 3 and

considered in evaluating conditions for pygmy 4 (table 4 17) Alternatives l and 5 are expected

rabbits. Panelists were only able to assess condi- to resuh in a continuing trend toward habitat isotions for pygmy rabbit on Federal land (see table ktion> whik Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 6, and 7 are

4.17). The large historic decline in pygmy rabbit expected to maintain or improve conditions

habitat reflects a loss of big sagebrush. The alter- (table 418)

natives were not considered likely to significantly

reduce habitat from current conditions. Site- Cumulative effects were judged to result in conspecific analysis may be necessary to fully address tinued population decline under all alternatives as

this species including the assessment of cumula- a result of fragmentation of habitat on nontive effects. Federal land (see weighted mean outcomes in

table 4.18).

White-tailed jackrabbit. White-tailed jackrabbits

use upland herblands throughout the Basin. Past

agricultural conversion, intensive grazing, and fire

Terrestrial 671
Carnivores (Aubry and Houston 1992, Weckwerth and

Wright 1968). The decline appears to be a result

Introduction—Twenty-two species of carnivores of heayy trappi ^ habitat deterioration

were identified as being present within the assess- (powdl ^ Zielinski 1994). Reintroductions of

ment area. Of these, six were selected for detailed fisher in the ^e^^ ^ began in ^ late

analysis because they are listed under the 195Qs and continued th h the early 1990s.

Endangered Species Act (ESA), are candidates for Regulating trapping seasons in Idaho and

listing, are listed as sensitive under FS or BLM Montana to prevent overharvest may result in

policy, or have been the subject of lawsuits. slow expansion of pOpulations in these areas

Additionally, three of these species, fisher (powdl and Zielinski 1994)-

American marten, and lynx, are associated with

late-serai forests for at least part of their habitat Fishers are found in a diversity of forest types but

requirements. All six species are known to or are are most commonly associated with riparian habisuspected to have declined in abundance within tats in landscapes dominated by mature conifer

the assessment area since European settlement. forests and late-serai forests (Aubry and Houston

1992, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Jones and Carton

Methods—Outcomes projected by the expert 1994> Powell ^ Zielinski)- Studies in northern

panel were adjusted by the Science Team for California (Buck and others 1994) investigated

marten, fisher, lynx, and wolverine The adjust- fi$her use of harvested forests. They found differ.

ments were based on additional information on em use of habhats by fisher whhin u , d haryest_

species habitat requirements from recently pub- e£j and heayily harvested areas. They ^ reported

hshed reports, consultation with additional species that management practices that reduce mature

experts, and additional information regarding the forest strucmre and increase the proportion of

alternatives obtained following the panel hardwoods result in sub-optimal fisher habitat,

deliberations. Jones and GartQn (1994) suggested that the inclu.

Results—The viability outcomes for carnivores

 sion of earl

y-

 and

 mid-serai forests may be imporsignificantly declined (1.0 to 0.5 units) from the

 tant

 components of fisher habitat, providing prey

historical period (tables 4.19 and 4.20, and figs. diversity. Jones (1991) reported of young forest

4.39 and 4.40). Historical distributions on aver-

 use b7 fisher in

 winter, but noted that fisher

age were described by Outcome 2 or 3, whereas selected locations within the young forests having

current distributions are characterized by Out-

 higher

 availability of large-diameter trees, snags,

come 4 or 5. In general, the mean outcome for all

 and down wood

y material.

carnivores under the alternatives would not be sig- m ian standards ^od^d with Alternatives 2,

nificantly different (+ > 0.5 units) from current 3> 4> 6 and ? would resuk in the $t im ove.

conditions (fig. 4 39). However, Alternatives 4, 6, mem in fi ian habkat conditions. Alternatives

and 7 would result in increased viability for one 3 4> ^ 6 WQuld Qte restoration of the his.

to two species on BLM- and FS-admimstered ^ distribution of late.seral habitats and protect

lands (fig. 4.41) Generally projected outcomes rf rian habitat> ^^ these dternzwes are prewere higher in the UCRB EIS area, but the rela- dkted tQ improve fisher habhat

 ^ most

tive effects of the alternatives were the same in Alternative 7 would establish reserves of late-serai

both the UCRB EIS and EEIS areas. Lynx was an comfa forestS) but ^ locations are not in prima.

exception since both areas had very similar out- ^ fisher habkat This ^,^^ would glso

come scores. restrict activity in unroaded areas greater than

Discussion 1,000 acres and would retain existing late-serai

c . i r > !• -C U i - - L vegetation. Alternative 1 would provide fo r only

Fisher. Declines in fishe r populations in the i- • j • C--IL - j ij

u i . ij .11 limited protection or riparian habitats and would

assessment area have been previously described t .

 v

 . , c • ji ci

result in continued fragmentation and loss or late672 Terrestrial
serai forests. Alternative 5 would emphasize commodity production in the primary fisher range

and would provide little protection to riparian

habitats.

Alternatives 4 and 6 in the EEIS area are predicted to improve fisher habitat above current conditions and result in isolated patches of habitat with

limited possibility for interactions between local

populations. Alternatives 1 and 5 would reduce

habitat quality to small isolated patches with no

potential for interactions and a high likelihood of

extirpation in 100 years. In the UCRB EIS area

Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would improve habitat

above current levels, but habitat would still

remain as isolated islands with limited potential

for interactions between populations. Alternatives

1,5, and 7 would reduce habitat to small isolated

islands with little potential for interactions

between local populations and little opportunity

for recolonization of habitats.

American marten. American marten are closely

associated with late-serai conifer forests with complex physical structure near the ground (Buskirk

and Powell 1994). Baker (1992) reported use by

marten of second-growth vegetation that had

small patches of old forest, large stumps, and logs

remaining in the treated area. Mesic habitats,

especially riparian habitat, are selected over xeric

conditions for foraging and resting (Buskirk and

others 1989, Buskirk and Powell 1994, Spencer

and others 1983), probably because of the greater

abundance of habitat structures that are associated

with riparian areas. Open areas without overhead

cover are infrequently used by martens, probably

due to increased risk of predation.

Figure 4.39 Carnivores

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.39. Frequency distribution of mean habitat outcome scores for six species of carnivores on Federal lands in the EEIS and

UCRB planning areas for historic, current, and future conditions under seven preliminary draft EIS alternatives. See "Methods for

Assessing Species and Habitat Outcomes" for full definition of each outcome score and for ranges of weighted mean outcome values used to define each outcome score.

Terrestrial
Figure 4.40 Carnivores

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.40. Mean outcome scores averaged over six species of carnivores in rhe EEIS and UCRB planning areas for hisroric, current, and future conditions under seven alternatives. Solid lines indicate scores for habitat conditions on Federal lands only;

dashed lines indicate projected populations from cumulative effects analysis. These lines are for illustrative purposes only; they do

not imply trends between alternatives.

Figure 4.41 Carnivores

Change from Current to Future

EEIS UCRB

Figure 4.41. Departure of habitat outcomes on Federal lands from current conditions to each alternative for six species of carnivores

in the EEIS and UCRB planning areas. Departure is estimated as a change of weighted mean outcome of 0.5 units or greater.

Terrestrial
Alternative 7 is predicted to provide the best Because of development on non-Federal lands,

marten habitat because of designation of reserves, lynx habitat would largely remain under all alterretention of large, unroaded areas and late-serai natives as isolated islands with little opportunity

forests, and riparian protection. Alternatives 4 and for dispersal of individuals between local popula6 contain standards to protect riparian habitat and tions. Alternative 6 provides the greatest opportuactively manage conifer forests for late-serai condi- nity to improve lynx habitat from current conditions. Both of these alternatives would result in a tions because the restoration strategy would be

less-fragmented landscape and would retain large tested and refined under an adaptive management

snags and down wood. Therefore, Alternatives 4 approach that would validate response of prey

and 6 would improve habitat conditions from populations and lynx to various management

current. Alternatives 2 and 3 are predicted to techniques. Alternative 4, with similar outcomes

maintain or slightly improve habitat from current after 100 years, may be too aggressive in the early

by retaining late-serai conifer forests in the range decades and result in extensive and rapid modifiof historical conditions and by providing strong cation of lynx and snowshoe hare habitat in popuriparian protection. These alternatives also, provide lation strongholds and little opportunity to valifor the beneficial retention of large snags and date management practices. Alternative 7 desigmoderate amounts of down wood across the land- nates reserves in portions of important lynx range

scape. Alternatives 1 and 5 would result in contin- with a strategy for allowing natural fire that would

ued fragmentation of late-serai forests and would result in improved habitat conditions for snownot provide strong riparian protection. shoe hare and lynx. Alternative 3 is predicted to

,, . . . ... provide better conditions than alternatives other

Alternative 7, would restore marten habitat to than fi and ?> but on, ^ im ovements over

near historic conditions by providing strict currem conditions. Alternatives 1, 2, and 5 would

reserves. Alternatives 4 and 6 would restore habi- ^^ in funher dedmes in , habkat resuld

tat to provide more continuous distribution with from continued fire suppression under Mtanz.

greater opportunities for individuals to interact ^ j and 2 and ive commoditv produc.

between populations than under current condi- don under Alternative 5.

tions. Alternatives 1, 2, 3, and 5 are projected to

result in a decrease in marten habitat from current Lynx habitat would remain as isolated patches

conditions and result in conditions that provide under Alternative 7, but habitat within the patchisolated habitats with limited opportunity for es should improve, resulting in larger within-patch

interactions between populations or the possibility sub-populations and increased dispersal to other

of recolonization. habitats. Alternative 6 would restore habitat above

¥ T i. II • i- i i i current levels through management that would

Lynx Lynx are highly specialized predators and create more snowshoe hare habitat> and ^

are closely associated with snowshoe hare popula- monitoring to ^SUK objectives are attained,

tions (Koehler 1990 Koehler and Aubry 1994, Alternatives 1, 2, 4, and 5 would result in a

Koehler and Brittell 1990). Exploitation for fur Auction of habitat from current conditions in

and deterioration of habitat conditions due to log- ^ inhial decades ofimplementation, which

gmg have been suggested as reasons for popula- create a botdeneck for { populatioris from

tion declines and consequent population viability which ± no, be abk tQ recover Jn ^

(Koehler 1987). Early-serai forests resulting from short term (3Q ^ ^^ of existin habhat

fire, timber harvest, disease and wind-throw pro- hes would increase under man nt and

vide habitat to support high densities of snowshoe ^, in limited ity for interactions

^

re

 U foon^ M§ini

8

c,oTttl0U r"

 between

 ^b-populations. Opportunity for recoloi ^^oo9

^ ' ' nization>

 once habitats are restored' would be

Brlttdl 199°)' limited.

Terrestrial 675
Table 4.19. Mean likelihood scores of viability outcomes for carnivores and ungulates for evaluation of

ICBEMP management alternatives. Likelihood scores for each period or alternative sum to 100 points.

High scores indicate high likelihood of an outcome. Means are calculated from the individual likelihood

scores of panelists.

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

C A R American marten EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 5 0 4 24442 4 2 0

3 50 22 10 16 14 50 6 50 60

4 0 42 36 40 38 46 36 46 20

5 0 32 52 40 44 0 56 0 0

EElSCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 5 0 4022202 4

3 50 22 8 8 8 12 8 13 21

4 0 42 29 39 34 33 27 34 34

5 0 32 63 51 56 53 65 51 41

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 2 4 0000000 0

2 42 12 2 6 6 20 12 20 40

3 34 34 17 28 28 60 35 60 50

4 0 26 41 40 40 20 27 20 10

5 0 28 40 26 26 0 26 0 0

UCRBCumEff5 1 2 4 0000000 0

2 4 2 4022224 6

3 34 16 16 18 18 21 13 25 44

4 0 30 27 31 31 39 31 37 37

5 0 50 57 49 49 38 54 34 13

C A R Fisher EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 1 2 0000000 1

3 22 2 1 4 5 28 1 28 12

4 34 14 13 47 47 24 9 24 25

5 32 84 86 49 48 48 90 48 62

EElSCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 1 2 0000000 0

3 2 2 2 02020 2 1 2

4 34 10 8 10 6 10 6 10 20

5 32 88 92 88 94 88 94 88 68

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 4 0 0000000 0

3 40 40 20 70 70 70 40 70 20

4 20 40 50 20 20 20 40 20 50

5 0 20 30 10 10 10 20 10 30

UCRBCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 4 0 0000000 0

3 4 0 2 30010 5 1 6

4 20 14 22 34 23 31 23 34 43

5 0 84 75 66 77 68 77 61 41

CAR Gray wolf EEIS BLM/FS 1 40 12 8 12 10 12 8 14 20

2 50 42 42 46 42 47 42 46 48

3 10 46 46 42 46 41 46 40 32

4 00402040 0

5 00000000 0

678 Terrestrial
Table 4.19 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group' Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

EElSCumEff 1 3 6 0000000 0

2 4 8 4 24262 8 1 0

3 1 6 8 88868 6 1 4

4 0 42 43 42 43 44 43 41 44

5 0 46 47 46 47 44 47 45 32

UCRBBLM/FS 1 68 22 18 22 18 22 16 24 36

2 30 43 44 43 44 43 44 42 39

3 2 35 34 35 34 35 36 34 25

4 00404040 0

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff 1 6 8 4000000 0

2 3 0 4010102 3

3 2 4 8 9 1 0 98 9 1 6

4 0 42 46 46 44 46 46 46 50

5 0 46 46 44 46 44 46 43 31

C A R Grizzly bear EEIS BLM/FS 1 4 4 0000000 0

2 4 4 0000000 4

3 10 12 4 5 5 4 4 4 11

4 2 40 47 47 47 50 47 50 49

5 0 48 49 48 48 46 49 46 36

EElSCumEff 1 4 6 0000000 0

2 4 6 0000000 2

3 82000000 4

4 0 8 68888 9 1 9

5 0 90 94 92 92 92 92 91 75

UCRBBLM/FS 1 6 2 8 44454 8 1 0

2 3 2 4 686666 4

3 6 1 0 66666 4 1 6

4 0 38 44 42 44 43 44 42 40

5 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40 30

UCRBCumEff 1 5 8 0000000 2

2 3 2 0000004 4

3 1 0 4233426 6

4 0 8 1 0 99 8 1 0 4 8

5 0 88 88 88 88 88 88 86 80

C A R Lynx EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 0004002 2

3 80 12 0 0 8 0 3 18 17

4 10 40 42 42 42 42 22 44 41

5 0 48 58 58 46 58 75 36 40

EElSCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 0000000 0

3 8 0 0443400 0

4 10 42 15 15 22 15 10 42 42

5 0 58 81 81 75 81 90 58 58

UCRBBLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 0004004 2

3 80 12 0 0 8 0 3 25 20

4 10 40 50 50 42 42 22 40 44

5 0 48 50 50 46 58 75 31 34

Terrestrial 67?
Table 4.19 (continued)

Period / Alternative4

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

UCRBCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 0000000 0

3 8 0 0443400 0

4 10 40 15 15 22 15 10 42 42

5 0 60 81 81 75 81 90 58 58

C A R Wolverine EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 0000000 0

3 8 0 1 2 4554441 1

4 10 40 47 47 47 50 47 50 54

5 0 48 49 48 48 46 49 46 35

EElSCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 3 6 000000 0 1 9

4 30 38 0 5 0 6 0 6 21

5 34 62 100 95 100 94 100 94 60

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 4788989 9

3 80 20 13 10 11 12 10 16 21

4 10 44 41 42 44 43 42 44 50

5 0 32 39 40 37 36 40 31 20

UCRBCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 3 6 000000 0 2 6

4 30 4 2 10 2 8 2 10 23

5 34 96 98 90 98 92 98 90 51

UNG California bighorn

sheep EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 0 0000000 0

4 50 40 40 50 40 40 50 40 10

5 0 60 60 50 60 60 50 60 90

EElSCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 0 0000000 0

4 50 30 30 40 30 30 40 30 10

5 0 70 70 60 70 70 60 70 90

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 0 0000000 0

4 50 40 40 50 40 40 50 40 10

5 0 60 60 50 60 60 50 60 90

UCRBCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 5 0 0000000 0

4 50 30 30 40 30 30 40 30 10

5 0 70 70 60 70 70 60 70 90

£78 Terrestrial
Table 4.19 (continued)

Period / Alternative"

Group1 Species Name Area2 Outcome3 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

U N G Pronghorn EEIS BLM/FS5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 0000000 0

3 80 50 25 25 60 70 25 70 25

4 10 50 60 60 40 30 60 30 60

5 0 0 15 15 0 0 15 0 15

EElSCumEff5 1 00000000 0

2 1 0 0000000 0

3 80 20 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

4 10 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5 0 30 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

UCRB BLM/FS5 1 1 0 0000000 0

2 80 60 20 20 65 70 20 70 20

3 10 30 60 60 35 30 60 30 60

4 0 10 20 20 0 0 20 0 20

5 00000000 0

UCRBCumEff5 1 1 0 0000000 0

2 8 0 0000000 0

3 10 60 10 10 10 10 10 10 10

4 0 40 50 50 50 50 50 50 50

5 0 0 40 40 40 40 40 40 40

U N G Woodland caribou EEIS BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 5 0 000000 0 4 6

5 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 54

EElSCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 5 0 000000 0 4 2

5 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 58

UCRB BLM/FS 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 5 0 000000 0 4 6

5 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 54

UCRBCumEff 1 00000000 0

2 00000000 0

3 00000000 0

4 5 0 000000 0 4 2

5 50 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 58

'Group: CAR - carnivore; UNG - ungulate.

2Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Outcome: 1 - contiguous; 2 - gaps; 3 - patchy; 4 - isolated; 5 - scarce. See text for complete explanation.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

Terrestrial 679
Table 4.20. Mean viability outcomes for habitat and populations of mammalian carnivores and ungulates

for evaluation of ICBEMP management alternatives. Mean outcomes were calculated as the weighted

mean of average likelihood scores in each outcome.

Period / Alternative3

Group1 Species Name Area2 H C A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 A6 A7

CAR American marten EEIS BLM/FS4 2.5 4.0 4.4 4.2 4.2 3.4s 4.5 3.45 3.05

EElSCumEff4 2.5 4.0 4.6s 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.65 4.3 4.1

UCRBBLM/FS4 2.1 3.7 4.2 3.9 3.9 3.05 3.7 3.05 2.75

UCRBCumEff4 2.1 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.3 4.1 4.4 4.0 3.65

CAR Fisher EEIS BLM/FS4 3.9 4.8 4.9 4.5 4.4 4.25 4.9 4.2s 4.5

EElSCumEff4 3.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.6

UCRBBLM/FS4 2.8 3.8 4.1 3.4 3.4 3.4 3.8 3.4 4.1

UCRBCumEff4 2.8 4.8 4.7 4.7 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.6 4.35

CAR Gray wolf EEIS BLM/FS 1.7 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.4 2.3 2.5 2.3 2.1

EElSCumEff 1.8 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.2 4.0

UCRBBLM/FS 1.3 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.2 2.1 2.3 2.1 1.9

UCRBCumEff 1.3 4.2 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.4 4.3 4.1

CAR Grizzly bear EEIS BLM/FS 1.7 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.2

EElSCumEff 1.6 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.7

UCRBBLM/FS 1.4 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.8

UCRBCumEff 1.5 4.8 4.9 4.9 4.9 4.8 4.9 4.7 4.6

CAR Lynx EEIS BLM/FS4 3.0 4.4 4.6 4.6 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.1 4.2

EElSCumEff4 3.0 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.6

UCRBBLM/FS4 3.0 4.4 4.5 4.5 4.3 4.6 4.7 4.0 4.1

UCRBCumEff4 3.0 4.6 4.8 4.8 4.7 4.8 4.9 4.6 4.6

CAR Wolverine EEIS BLM/FS4 3.0 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.2

EElSCumEff4 4.0 4.6 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.4

UCRBBLM/FS4 3.0 4.0 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.1 4.0 3.8

UCRBCumEff4 4.0 5.0 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 5.0 4.9 4.3s

UNG California bighorn sheep EEIS BLM/FS4

EElSCumEff4 3.5 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.9

UCRBBLM/FS4 3.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.6 4.5 4.6 4.9

UCRBCumEff4 3.5 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.9

UNG Pronghorn EEIS BLM/FS4 3.0 3.5 3.9 3.9 3.4 3.3 3.9 3.3 3.9

EElSCumEff4 3.0 4.1 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3

UCRBBLM/FS4 2.0 2.5 3.05 3.05 2.4 2.3 3.05 2.3 3.05

UCRB CumEff4 2.0 3.4

UNG Woodland caribou EEIS BLM/FS 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5

EElSCumEff 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.6

UCRBBLM/FS 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.5

UCRBCumEff 4.5 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 4.6

'Group: CAR - carnivore; UNG - ungulate.

2Area: EEIS BLM/FS - Eastern Oregon and Washington planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; EEIS CumEff - all lands in Eastern

Oregon and Washington planning area; UCRB BLM/FS - Upper Columbia Basin planning area, BLM and Forest Service lands only; UCRB

CumEff - all lands in Upper Columbia Basin planning area.

'Period / Alternative: H - historical pre-European settlement period; C - current; Al - alternative 1; A2 - alternative 2; etc.

'Species for which panelists' scores were adjusted by Science Team. Scores were adjusted when considered to reflect a misinterpretation or incomplete understanding of the management alternatives or their outcomes, or the species ecology.

'Mean outcome for alternative departs from current outcome by greater than or equal to 0.5 units. Outcomes reported in table were rounded to

0.1 units; but, differences were calculated to 0.01 units. Hence, departure calculated from the table many be misleading.

688 Terrestrial
Wolverine. Wolverines were historically wide- Habitat conditions for gray wolves were predicted

spread, but present in low densities in the assess- to be similar for all alternatives. Wolf habitat under

ment area. They were classified as predators and Alternatives 1, 3, and 5 is projected to decline

considered "vermin" or pests throughout much slightly. Alternatives 2, 4, and 6 are projected to

of their range until the 1960s (Banci 1994, result in little change in habitat from current condiHornocker and Hash 1981). Copeland and Harris tions. A slight increase in habitat was predicted

(1994) describe wolverines as nomadic in nature under Alternative 7 as a result of retention of large

using a variety of habitats. Their preliminary data unroaded areas and establishment of reserves,

identify subalpine cirque habitats as important Because gray wolves are habitat generalists, all alterduring reproduction. Wolverines are scavengers natives would provide adequate vegetation condiand depend on other large predators and natural tions, including habitat for prey populations. Cummortality (winter kill, disease) for carrion. Refugia ulative effects from actions on other lands were preor large reserves that are capable of providing dieted to be significant as a result of very high road

source populations combined with additional habi- densities, including high-volume interstate hightat suitable to support dispersing animals, may ways, and residential development in large river valprovide the best strategy for wolverine conservation leys which may be barriers to wolf movements.

(Banci 1994, Hornocker and Hash 1981). _, . , , _ . . ...

drizzly bear, drizzly bears were listed as threatAlternative 7 is predicted to provide the best ened under the ESA in 1975 and a recovery plan

wolverine habitat by establishing reserves with lim- was approved in 1982 and revised in 1993 (USDI

ited roads and human activity and requiring all 1993). Six recovery zones were established for

existing unroaded areas greater than 1,000 acres to grizzly bears (USDI 1993). Three of the recovery

remain unroaded. These reserves have the potential zones, the Bitterroots, Selkirks, and Cabinet-Yaak,

to provide source populations from which Individ- are completely within the assessment area and the

uals can disperse to other areas as habitat becomes remaining three, the Northern Continental

available. The remaining alternatives would all pro- Divide, Yellowstone, and North Cascades are parvide outcomes similar to current conditions; habi- dally within the area. Threats to grizzly bear pertat would remain isolated with little opportunity sistence are more related to human activities in

for female dispersal. Road management would be grizzly bear habitat than changes in vegetation

similar among Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6, with composition and structure,

overall open road densities predicted to remain sta- .. . _. , , , . ,. ,

ble or to decline, but with some currently unroad- Alternative 7 is the only alternat.ve predicted to

ed areas proposed for roading. Alternative 1 would }mP

rov^ cond

«

lons

 for grizzly bears on Federal

provide for continued increases in open road densi- lands. Establishment of reserves, retention of large

ties and loss of some current unroaded areas. "nroaded areas'

and manaSem<;nt of n^ dlstur

-

bances within the reserves would provide the secuGray wolf. Gray wolves use a wide variety of rity habitat needed by bears and maintain desired

habitats (Fritts 1992, Fritts and others 1994, foods, such as Vaccinium sp. Alternatives 1 through

Gunson 1991, Martin and others 1995, Mech 6 would maintain or slightly improve on current

1993, USDI 1987). Availability of prey (primarily conditions based on the existing recovery plan,

large ungulates) and protection from direct mor- Increased protection for riparian habitat in Altertality are considered important for wolf conserva- natives 2, 3, 4, and 6 would benefit spring habitat

tion and recovery (Fritts and others 1994, USDI conditions for bears. Except for Alternative 7,

1987). Gray wolves were listed as endangered cumulative effects on lands other than federally

under the ESA in 1973. A recovery plan for the administered are predicted to negatively influence

Northern Rocky Mountains (northwest Montana, grizzly bear populations. Human developments are

central Idaho, and the greater Yellowstone area) predicted to expand in major river valleys, resulting

was approved in 1987 (USDI 1987). in barriers to movement between bear populations.

Terrestrial 681
Ungulates alternatives were projected to have similar effects

, relative to the current condition.

Introduction—Twelve species or ungulates

(including the feral horse) were identified and Discussion—

considered in the assessment. Three of these, Woodland caribou. Historically, the range of

woodland caribou, California bighorn sheep, and woodland caribou in the assessment area was limitpronghorn, were selected for detailed analysis. ej to northwestern Montana and Idaho south to

Two species, woodland caribou and California tne Salmon River (USDI 1994). Current range in

bighorn sheep, are listed under the ESA or are tne assessment area is limited to approximately

listed as sensitive, and have suspected declines in 2,200 square miles in the Selkirk Mountains in

population. Pronghorn were selected because of northeastern Washington and northern Idaho,

habitat declines from historic conditions and Woodland caribou were listed as endangered under

because habitat is predicted to continue to decline tne ESA in 1983. A recovery plan was approved in

under one or more of the alternatives. 1985 and revised in 1994 (USDI 1994). WoodMethods—Outcomes projected by the expert

 land caribou

 ^bitat varies seasonally, but appears

panel were adjusted for pronghorn by the Science <°

 be

 associated with mature and late-serai conifer

Team for similar reasons as with carnivores.

 forests dur

r

m

g «^7 winter, spring (including calvConsultation with an additional species expert

 m8>> and faj1' Purmg late wlnter' hlgh

 elevation,

provided additional insight into historic, current, open-canopied vegetation containing high lichen

and projected outcomes for pronghorn. Outcomes

 densmes ls imP°nant (USDI 1994). Vegetation

for California bighorn sheep were adjusted to management, including timber harvest, has resultreflect disease as a part of cumulative effects rather

 ed m TMP«>ved habitat for deer and elk. The

than direct habitat effects (Hunt 1980, Jessup

 mcreases m th(f un8ulate

 Populations has dso

1 osn T^cciir. 1Q891 resulted in predator (especially cougar) population

lyou, jcssup iyo£j. . . r n i -i

increases in the range or woodland caribou.

Results—The alternatives would have very mixed Predation has been identified as a potential probeffects on the ungulate species that were evaluat- lem in woodland caribou recovery (USDI 1994).

ed. Woodland caribou habitat on federally admin- Because existing late-serai habitat is limited, large

istered lands in the planning area would decline fires have the potential to reduce the existing range

similarly under Alternatives 1 through 6 (tables of woodland caribou as do insects, disease, and

4.19 and 4.20). Habitat conditions would remain timber harvesting activities (USDI 1994).

nearly unchanged, or improve very slightly, from .

current conditions under Alternative 7. Con-

 The

 woodland caribou recovery area is within a

versely, habitat for California bighorn sheep

 reserve

 A

that wo"ld be

 established under Alternawould be poorer under Alternative 7. Habitat for

 tlve 7' ^though a reserve area, this alternative

California bighorn sheep under Alternatives 1 TM>uld ^ for restoration activities to protect

through 6 would change little from current condi- short-term habitats necessary for threatened or

tions. Habitat for pronghorn within the planning endangered species such as caribou. Also control

area would improve slightly from current condi-

 of Iar8e fires

 f

that

 could reduce habitat or restrict

tions under Alternatives 3, 4, and 6. Pronghorn movement of woodland caribou may be necessary,

habitat would decline similarly under Alternative Restoration of late-serai forests in Alternatives 3,

i T <; ~~A -7 4, and 6 would improve woodland caribou habi1,2, 5, and/. ' *

tat, but because the range and population are so

Outcomes for California bighorn sheep and small and isolated, extirpation is predicted withwoodland caribou were the same for both the out continued augmentation of the herd.

EEIS and UCRB EIS areas. Outcomes for pronghorn were higher in the UCRB EIS area, but the Cahfornia blghorn sheep. Historically

California bighorn sheep were restricted to and

682 Terrestrial